2015 (11) TMI 1593

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Saharan, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order for demanding differential duty along with interest and for imposition of penalty. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant is manufacturer of goods falling under CTH 72, 73 & 84 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period September 2002, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e respondent is liable to pay duty in the light of C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 816/13/2005-C.E., dated 16-6-2005. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay duty on the transaction value of the inputs. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the contention of the learned AR and submits that respondent is not the manufacturer of the inputs. Therefore, duty cannot be de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X